Should Sanders be given a speaking slot at the DNC if he refuses to endorse

[Lyin' Steve]

Can you say, "hypocrite?" That's really an insult to everyone, including myself, who cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. When will you all on the far left learn that everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton was not bribed by Wall Street to vote for her? I'm sure that's a conspiracy theory being floated out there in the fantasy land of The Young Turks/Daily Kos/Reddit.

They think we only voted for Hillary because we were poorly informed or misinformed and didn't know enough about Hillary and Bernie to realize that Bernie is jesus and Hillary is the devil.

In reality, since we both have thousands of posts on Atlas and don't hide in a Reddit echo chamber, we're probably far more informed than most of the Bernie supporters, and we're both well aware of Hillary's flaws and Bernie's strengths.  And yet we voted for Hillary anyway.  We must just hate America.

[Suck my caulk]

Yes. He ran a competitive campaign, won over 20 state contests, and has several million followers, many of whom are still on the fence as to whether they can even vote for Clinton in good conscience (I personally cannot and will not). Whether he endorses the nominee or not, he should have a chance to make his case and list the concessions he would like to see from the nominee before he can encourage his followers to vote Clinton. It is also worth pointing out that Clinton does not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright, and therefore even if Sanders trashes Clinton, he should still get a speaking slot, because he deserves to be able to make his case to the superdelegates. Yes, Clinton is ahead (via questionable campaign tactics and overwhelming establishment backing), but she has not hit 2,383 outright, and Sanders continues to poll better than her against Trump, along with the fact that he is from the scandal of indictment.

Jfern, is that you?

But muh general election polls! Polls do not translate into votes.

No, he should absolutely NOT be given a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention if he doesn't endorse the nominee. Take your ball and go speak at the Green Party National Convention. Jill Stein would love to have you there, even though she thinks you're too conservative to call yourself a socialist. Lol

Your same argument above could have been used eight years ago; of course, had Hillary NOT endorsed Obama, she would have been put on the guillotine. Once again, the double standard is beyond sickening. Hillary won the nomination fair and square. You sound like a sore loser just trying to cry foul because your candidate lost. Better luck next time, kiddo.

Bernie Sanders only became a "Democrat" because he knew there was no way for him to win as an independent or to hitch his wagon to the Jill Stein Train. He talks about how both parties are corrupt and entities of Wall Street and yet he sought to exploit the party for his own benefit. He's also hoping to be on the ticket with her, which raises the question, "Why would he want to be on the same ticket with someone so corrupt and morally bankrupt as Hillary Clinton," as you and others in the Jfern Asylum have repeatedly whined.

As for the superdelegates, Bernie should have done his homework before deciding to run as a Democrat. Political parties have every right to make their own convention rules; if you don't like it, you can either run under a different party or seek to change the rules for future elections, which seems to be what Sanders is attempting to do now, and that's all fine and dandy by me. Sanders talks about how the system is rigged because of the superdelegates, but now you're suggesting that he should be given a speaking slot at the convention to try to convince those same cheating superdelegates who are rigging the system to basically overturn the will of the voters and back a candidate who is behind in the popular vote and who is behind in the pledged delegates? Can you say, "hypocrite?" That's really an insult to everyone, including myself, who cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. When will you all on the far left learn that everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton was not bribed by Wall Street to vote for her? I'm sure that's a conspiracy theory being floated out there in the fantasy land of The Young Turks/Daily Kos/Reddit.

Your argument for why he should be given a speaking slot is just weak, sour (and salty) grapes and merits little credibility.

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.

B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.

C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.

D.) Parties can set rules for the convention as they please, but they should keep in mind that Sanders has amassed a giant movement behind him and if we feel our candidate has been cheated and/or that the ultimate Democratic nominee is insufficiently progressive, your candidate will be the one who loses millions of potential voters to another candidate.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

The thing is, people remember McCarthy and Brown as tremendous assholes for what they did.  Nobody today remembers Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign fondly, he's remembered as bitter, petulant, and caught up in a one-sided feud with Clinton that Clinton couldn't care less about.  Eugene McCarthy's 1968 temper tantrum is the case study everyone points to for how someone could completely screw up a convention and presidential race, and he had far more of a case than Bernie given that the race was in complete flux after the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.  The only reason Ted Kennedy isn't viewed as negatively is because most people are aware that Carter was a dick to Kennedy throughout his presidency.

What is Bernie's justification for going to the convention?  Clinton has been extraordinarily kind and gentle with him throughout the primary process, not running a single attack ad against him.  His claims of the party stealing the nomination from him and being unfair to him or not respecting his supporters are just a bunch of insubstantial fluff and he knows it.  McCarthy and Kennedy at least had motivations for refusing to endorse.  What is Bernie's motivation?  Is he just Jerry Brown '92 redux?  That's the most irritating thing about his issuing of demands and his insistence on going through to the convention.  He doesn't seem to have any actual good reason to do it other than that he wants attention (a.k.a. "the movement must survive", "the revolution must continue", whatever) or, as the Politico article inside his campaign revealed, that he's just bitter and angry at Hillary Clinton and the DNC in a one-sided way.

Well said. I think one thing the Sanders people is missing is that you can't really call your campaign a "revolution" when the vast majority of your support only comes from white people and college kiddies. That's not a coalition that's representative of the Democratic Party or the country as a whole. He's "resonating" with a small yet vocal faction in the party, and those who make the most noise are often heard the most. Fact of the matter is that her coalition of voters is much broader, more diverse, and more representative of the party and country.

[Lyin' Steve]

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.
B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.
C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.
D.) Even if Clinton wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her because she does not represent my values. If that makes me a sore loser, then so be it.

B)  There's no "right" to be given a speech to try to convince superdelegates to vote for you hours before they're going to vote, especially when all of them have said they will support Clinton.  And even if there was, it's absolutely obvious that by any measure of decency Bernie should do what Hillary did in 2008 and accept that he lost instead of irritating everyone and hurting the party by hopelessly trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him.  That aside, Bernie and his campaign have even said that they're not trying to flip superdelegates anymore, so you're arguing something Bernie's not even arguing.

C)  Angus King and Jim Jeffords don't go around talking about how terrible, corrupt and full of crooks the Democratic Party is and how it needs to change its policies and accept their ideas or it will die.

D)   I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Hillary actually does represent your values, but when asked about it you'll pick the one or two values Bernie told you she disagrees with you on and pretend those are more important than all the ones she agrees with you on, so that you can pretend to have a stubbornvaliant justification for what is really an immature, pathetic, sad little sulk of a vote.

[Ebowed]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

Thanks for the history lecture.  But my claim is specifically regarding Bernie Sanders.  If he endorsed the Democratic nominee even when he was an Independent (as you are all so fond of pointing out repeatedly), why would he not do so now that he identifies as a Democrat?

He's had numerous opportunities to say he wouldn't, but has said otherwise.  In the debates he repeatedly said Hillary Clinton is better than any Republican.  He has been stressing the importance of defeating the Republicans in November since Day 1.

[Lyin' Steve]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

Thanks for the history lecture.  But my claim is specifically regarding Bernie Sanders.  If he endorsed the Democratic nominee even when he was an Independent (as you are all so fond of pointing out repeatedly), why would he not do so now that he identifies as a Democrat?

Because he said he wouldn't?  We're only talking about an endorsement prior to the convention here, after the convention it's less than useless because he'll have already robbed Hillary of her convention bump by causing (or passively permitting, more his style, which is as good as causing) discord and mayhem.  Sanders has repeatedly promised to "take this fight to the convention."

EDIT because you edited your post.  Saying that Hillary is better than the Republicans and that Trump is terrible is NOT the same as an endorsement or saying he'll endorse her.  In particular, if he continues to avoid saying that he was wrong and Hillary isn't actually an evil corporate shill like he's been telling everyone she is since October, he's letting his supporters continue to think that, which is going to lead a lot of them to stay home or vote for third party candidates.

[Ebowed]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

Thanks for the history lecture.  But my claim is specifically regarding Bernie Sanders.  If he endorsed the Democratic nominee even when he was an Independent (as you are all so fond of pointing out repeatedly), why would he not do so now that he identifies as a Democrat?

Because he said he wouldn't?

Dead wrong.

"...On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day." -- Sanders

Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she and Bernie Sanders' campaigns have "been reaching out to each other" and that both Democrats will eventually unite to defeat Republican Donald Trump in November.

Are you saying Hillary Clinton was lying about this?

You are very naive if you think that Sanders 'taking this to the convention' is the same thing as what Ted Kennedy did in 1980.  But it fits the narrative you are trying to push, so I understand.  You just deserve to be called out on the disingenuous concern trolling, that's all.

[Suck my caulk]

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.
B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.
C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.
D.) Even if Clinton wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her because she does not represent my values. If that makes me a sore loser, then so be it.

B)  There's no "right" to be given a speech to try to convince superdelegates to vote for you hours before they're going to vote, especially when all of them have said they will support Clinton.  And even if there was, it's absolutely obvious that by any measure of decency Bernie should do what Hillary did in 2008 and accept that he lost instead of irritating everyone and hurting the party by hopelessly trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him.  That aside, Bernie and his campaign have even said that they're not trying to flip superdelegates anymore, so you're arguing something Bernie's not even arguing.

C)  Angus King and Jim Jeffords don't go around talking about how terrible, corrupt and full of crooks the Democratic Party is and how it needs to change its policies and accept their ideas or it will die.

D)   I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Hillary actually does represent your values, but when asked about it you'll pick the one or two values Bernie told you she disagrees with you on and pretend those are more important than all the ones she agrees with you on, so that you can pretend to have a stubbornvaliant justification for what is really an immature, pathetic, sad little sulk of a vote.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

[Ebowed]

For reference, here is Sanders' endorsement of Bill Clinton in 1996.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are we going to pretend that doesn't count as an endorsement?  And yes, Hillary is going to get a better one that (with the press conferences and everything!), especially since she will be adopting much of Bernie's agenda into the DNC platform.

[Suck my caulk]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

Thanks for the history lecture.  But my claim is specifically regarding Bernie Sanders.  If he endorsed the Democratic nominee even when he was an Independent (as you are all so fond of pointing out repeatedly), why would he not do so now that he identifies as a Democrat?

Because he said he wouldn't?

Dead wrong.

"...On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day." -- Sanders

Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she and Bernie Sanders' campaigns have "been reaching out to each other" and that both Democrats will eventually unite to defeat Republican Donald Trump in November.

Are you saying Hillary Clinton was lying about this?

You are very naive if you think that Sanders 'taking this to the convention' is the same thing as what Ted Kennedy did in 1980.  But it fits the narrative you are trying to push, so I understand.  You just deserve to be called out on the disingenuous concern trolling, that's all.

Good points, Ebowed. It is important to remember that Bernie Sanders is not his supporters. He may be willing to work with Hillary Clinton to defeat Trump, and that's an acceptable position if he believes that is best for the country. Nonetheless, as much as I support Sanders politically, I will not just fall in line and vote for Clinton, even if he tells me to, or if he accepted a position as her running mate. If Steve is implying that Sanders and/or his supporters are hesitant to endorse Clinton because she is a woman, that is getting old. I am so sexist that I will be voting for Jill Stein in November because, unlike Clinton, Stein is actually a progressive who represents my values. If I was in a swing state, I would do the same thing.

[Ebsy]

Not sure what the issue is here: active candidates don't get to speak at the convention until after the roll call. The rules are the rules, and they aren't likely to be changed.

[Lyin' Steve]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

Thanks for the history lecture.  But my claim is specifically regarding Bernie Sanders.  If he endorsed the Democratic nominee even when he was an Independent (as you are all so fond of pointing out repeatedly), why would he not do so now that he identifies as a Democrat?

Because he said he wouldn't?

Dead wrong.

"...On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day." -- Sanders

Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that she and Bernie Sanders' campaigns have "been reaching out to each other" and that both Democrats will eventually unite to defeat Republican Donald Trump in November.

Are you saying Hillary Clinton was lying about this?

You are very naive if you think that Sanders 'taking this to the convention' is the same thing as what Ted Kennedy did in 1980.  But it fits the narrative you are trying to push, so I understand.  You just deserve to be called out on the disingenuous concern trolling, that's all.

I think Bernie gave Hillary one impression and then wanted to give the public a different impression.  What's actual going on in his head, we may never know.  But it's not unreasonable to assume that he won't endorse her.

I never said it was the same thing as Kennedy in 1980, in fact I said the opposite.  I said it was most similar to Jerry Brown's pigheadedness in 1992.

And you absolutely ignored what I said about how saying Hillary is better than Trump isn't an endorsement.  Completely ignored it.  Sad!

[Ebowed]

And you absolutely ignored what I said about how saying Hillary is better than Trump isn't an endorsement.  Completely ignored it.  Sad!

Try to extrapolate from this.

[Lyin' Steve]

And you absolutely ignored what I said about how saying Hillary is better than Trump isn't an endorsement.  Completely ignored it.  Sad!

Try to extrapolate from this.

Are you drunk or something?  What does his 1996 endorsement of Bill have to do with anything?

[HAnnA MArin County]

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.
B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.
C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.
D.) Even if Clinton wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her because she does not represent my values. If that makes me a sore loser, then so be it.

B)  There's no "right" to be given a speech to try to convince superdelegates to vote for you hours before they're going to vote, especially when all of them have said they will support Clinton.  And even if there was, it's absolutely obvious that by any measure of decency Bernie should do what Hillary did in 2008 and accept that he lost instead of irritating everyone and hurting the party by hopelessly trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him.  That aside, Bernie and his campaign have even said that they're not trying to flip superdelegates anymore, so you're arguing something Bernie's not even arguing.

C)  Angus King and Jim Jeffords don't go around talking about how terrible, corrupt and full of crooks the Democratic Party is and how it needs to change its policies and accept their ideas or it will die.

D)   I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Hillary actually does represent your values, but when asked about it you'll pick the one or two values Bernie told you she disagrees with you on and pretend those are more important than all the ones she agrees with you on, so that you can pretend to have a stubbornvaliant justification for what is really an immature, pathetic, sad little sulk of a vote.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

LMAO. You're completely hopeless, child. You ARE damaging the ticket by not supporting the nominee and parroting right-wing talking points. I'm sure you've heard that "united we stand, divided we fall" thing. We do not want to engage in a civil war similar to what is going on in the Republican/Tea/Trump Party. If you really care about progressive principles, you need to understand that there's more at stake here than just the Presidency: we also have to win seats in Congress, at the state level, and down the ticket to fully implement the progressive principles and ideals that we hold dear. People such as yourself just make it all the more likely for people to doubt Hillary Clinton given all the right-wing lies and smears that have been launched against her, and that just leads them to vote for the other guy; in this case, Trump. Think about that...

But your whines are still nothing but salty, sour grapes. Furthermore, we are going to desist with the lettered bulleting of our points because this is not a multiple choice test, although you're about to be schooled, so take some notes.

Hillary Clinton has been more than gracious to Bernie Sanders and stubborn supporters such as yourself. She's extended the olive branch about as far as she can, only to have it fall on deaf ears because it seems as though she can do nothing to appease folks such as you who despise her so much that you're willing to throw your vote away for a candidate who couldn't crack half of one percent of the nationwide vote in 2012 and who didn't even qualify for the ballot in all 51 states (that's including the District of Columbia). If you really hate her that much, please don't call yourself a progressive, because you're not: you're just another sore loser who's making it easier for Donald Trump to creep closer to the finish line, because every time you attack her using right-wing talking points and smear tactics, you're doing nothing but validating the Karl Rove playbook. Nothing progressive about that.

What are these alleged"unforeseen "electoral consequences" of which you speak? Are you looking into a crystal ball, Larry Sabato, or are you just another Miss Cleo trying to spread panic and fear and being a concern troll because "muh general election polls says..." Your warning is just more smack talk from someone who got beat fair and square; thus, a sore loser.

[Podgy the Bear]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

The thing is, people remember McCarthy and Brown as tremendous assholes for what they did.  Nobody today remembers Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign fondly, he's remembered as bitter, petulant, and caught up in a one-sided feud with Clinton that Clinton couldn't care less about.  Eugene McCarthy's 1968 temper tantrum is the case study everyone points to for how someone could completely screw up a convention and presidential race, and he had far more of a case than Bernie given that the race was in complete flux after the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.  The only reason Ted Kennedy isn't viewed as negatively is because most people are aware that Carter was a dick to Kennedy throughout his presidency.

What is Bernie's justification for going to the convention?  Clinton has been extraordinarily kind and gentle with him throughout the primary process, not running a single attack ad against him.  His claims of the party stealing the nomination from him and being unfair to him or not respecting his supporters are just a bunch of insubstantial fluff and he knows it.  McCarthy and Kennedy at least had motivations for refusing to endorse.  What is Bernie's motivation?  Is he just Jerry Brown '92 redux?  That's the most irritating thing about his issuing of demands and his insistence on going through to the convention.  He doesn't seem to have any actual good reason to do it other than that he wants attention (a.k.a. "the movement must survive", "the revolution must continue", whatever) or, as the Politico article inside his campaign revealed, that he's just bitter and angry at Hillary Clinton and the DNC in a one-sided way.

Good, insightful analysis about McCarthy, Kennedy, and Brown.  Of course, all three ran under very different circumstances.   Brown will complete a comeback and a largely positive legacy as a 16 year governor of the largest state in the country.  And Kennedy is rightfully regarded as a beloved Democratic figure.

On the other hand, despite his views on the Vietnam conflict--McCarthy today is regarded mostly as a bitter, dysthymic malcontent who was in love with himself.   McCarthy thought that he was bigger than the cause.  Bernie can do the same--or he can work within a system to make gradual changes.   

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I don't understand how so many people who are supposedly political observers seem to cling to this idea that he won't eventually endorse the Democratic nominee...

Well, Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, and Jerry Brown didn't endorse the democratic nominee.  It's not unheard of for a democratic primary to end in bitterness with the loser making unreasonable demands and refusing to endorse the winner.

The thing is, people remember McCarthy and Brown as tremendous assholes for what they did.  Nobody today remembers Jerry Brown's 1992 campaign fondly, he's remembered as bitter, petulant, and caught up in a one-sided feud with Clinton that Clinton couldn't care less about.  Eugene McCarthy's 1968 temper tantrum is the case study everyone points to for how someone could completely screw up a convention and presidential race, and he had far more of a case than Bernie given that the race was in complete flux after the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.  The only reason Ted Kennedy isn't viewed as negatively is because most people are aware that Carter was a dick to Kennedy throughout his presidency.

What is Bernie's justification for going to the convention?  Clinton has been extraordinarily kind and gentle with him throughout the primary process, not running a single attack ad against him.  His claims of the party stealing the nomination from him and being unfair to him or not respecting his supporters are just a bunch of insubstantial fluff and he knows it.  McCarthy and Kennedy at least had motivations for refusing to endorse.  What is Bernie's motivation?  Is he just Jerry Brown '92 redux?  That's the most irritating thing about his issuing of demands and his insistence on going through to the convention.  He doesn't seem to have any actual good reason to do it other than that he wants attention (a.k.a. "the movement must survive", "the revolution must continue", whatever) or, as the Politico article inside his campaign revealed, that he's just bitter and angry at Hillary Clinton and the DNC in a one-sided way.

Ted Kennedy stated at the 1980 convention that he would support Carter, and he did campaign with and for Carter in the 1980 election.

Eugene McCarthy did not endorse HHH until late in the 1968 campaign, after HHH's Salt Lake City speech on October 1, 1968, where he broke (somewhat) with LBJ's Vietnam policies.

Jerry Brown never said he wouldn't vote for Clinton in 1992, and did endorse him.  In 1992, Jerry Brown was 10 years out of office, after having been defeated for a Senate seat; it's not like his stature was at the level of McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, or Sanders.

BTW, George Wallace, who didn't endorse McGovern, got a speaking slot at the 1972 Democratic convention.  Now the Democratic Party was much different then, and it had a lot of white Southern delegates who were either Wallace partisans or OK with Wallace, but Wallace made he speech (which advocated more defense and less welfare; he actually used those words) and it was respectfully received.  The 1972 Democratic National Convention was not the disaster the 1968 convention was; its problem was that counterculture liberalism and avant garde politics were on display in a way that Middle America was not going to accept.  The Democrats, in their way, did not overcome the cosmetics of the 1972 convention for 20 years.

[IceSpear]

Yes. He ran a competitive campaign, won over 20 state contests, and has several million followers, many of whom are still on the fence as to whether they can even vote for Clinton in good conscience (I personally cannot and will not). Whether he endorses the nominee or not, he should have a chance to make his case and list the concessions he would like to see from the nominee before he can encourage his followers to vote Clinton. It is also worth pointing out that Clinton does not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to win the nomination outright, and therefore even if Sanders trashes Clinton, he should still get a speaking slot, because he deserves to be able to make his case to the superdelegates. Yes, Clinton is ahead (via questionable campaign tactics and overwhelming establishment backing), but she has not hit 2,383 outright, and Sanders continues to poll better than her against Trump, along with the fact that he is from the scandal of indictment.

Jfern, is that you?

But muh general election polls! Polls do not translate into votes.

No, he should absolutely NOT be given a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention if he doesn't endorse the nominee. Take your ball and go speak at the Green Party National Convention. Jill Stein would love to have you there, even though she thinks you're too conservative to call yourself a socialist. Lol

Your same argument above could have been used eight years ago; of course, had Hillary NOT endorsed Obama, she would have been put on the guillotine. Once again, the double standard is beyond sickening. Hillary won the nomination fair and square. You sound like a sore loser just trying to cry foul because your candidate lost. Better luck next time, kiddo.

Bernie Sanders only became a "Democrat" because he knew there was no way for him to win as an independent or to hitch his wagon to the Jill Stein Train. He talks about how both parties are corrupt and entities of Wall Street and yet he sought to exploit the party for his own benefit. He's also hoping to be on the ticket with her, which raises the question, "Why would he want to be on the same ticket with someone so corrupt and morally bankrupt as Hillary Clinton," as you and others in the Jfern Asylum have repeatedly whined.

As for the superdelegates, Bernie should have done his homework before deciding to run as a Democrat. Political parties have every right to make their own convention rules; if you don't like it, you can either run under a different party or seek to change the rules for future elections, which seems to be what Sanders is attempting to do now, and that's all fine and dandy by me. Sanders talks about how the system is rigged because of the superdelegates, but now you're suggesting that he should be given a speaking slot at the convention to try to convince those same cheating superdelegates who are rigging the system to basically overturn the will of the voters and back a candidate who is behind in the popular vote and who is behind in the pledged delegates? Can you say, "hypocrite?" That's really an insult to everyone, including myself, who cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. When will you all on the far left learn that everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton was not bribed by Wall Street to vote for her? I'm sure that's a conspiracy theory being floated out there in the fantasy land of The Young Turks/Daily Kos/Reddit.

Your argument for why he should be given a speaking slot is just weak, sour (and salty) grapes and merits little credibility.

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.

B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.

C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.

D.) Parties can set rules for the convention as they please, but they should keep in mind that Sanders has amassed a giant movement behind him and if we feel our candidate has been cheated and/or that the ultimate Democratic nominee is insufficiently progressive, your candidate will be the one who loses millions of potential voters to another candidate.

Obama did not have a majority of pledged delegates either. Nor would any candidate in a remotely contested race due to the fact that superdelegates make up so much of the total. This is a nonsensical argument.

And you kind of prove the point here that Bernie loses leverage every day. It was at its peak on June 7th, but after Hillary clinched the nomination and got endorsements from Obama/Biden/Warren etc., Trump imploded, and Hillary surged in the polls, many of the Bernie supporters are already beginning to rally around her. As time passes, more and more will gradually do so. Soon the only people who are left will be those that are so deranged with Hillary hatred (like you) that his endorsement would mean nothing to them, and even being on the ticket would mean nothing to them since it would just mean he "sold out." Meaning his endorsement would then be effectively worthless.

[IceSpear]

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.
B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.
C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.
D.) Even if Clinton wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her because she does not represent my values. If that makes me a sore loser, then so be it.

B)  There's no "right" to be given a speech to try to convince superdelegates to vote for you hours before they're going to vote, especially when all of them have said they will support Clinton.  And even if there was, it's absolutely obvious that by any measure of decency Bernie should do what Hillary did in 2008 and accept that he lost instead of irritating everyone and hurting the party by hopelessly trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him.  That aside, Bernie and his campaign have even said that they're not trying to flip superdelegates anymore, so you're arguing something Bernie's not even arguing.

C)  Angus King and Jim Jeffords don't go around talking about how terrible, corrupt and full of crooks the Democratic Party is and how it needs to change its policies and accept their ideas or it will die.

D)   I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Hillary actually does represent your values, but when asked about it you'll pick the one or two values Bernie told you she disagrees with you on and pretend those are more important than all the ones she agrees with you on, so that you can pretend to have a stubbornvaliant justification for what is really an immature, pathetic, sad little sulk of a vote.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

"Me and many other Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton no matter what! Stein 2016!"

"If Clinton doesn't do X, Y, and Z, me and many other Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton! Stein 2016!"

I see you aren't very skilled in the art of negotiation.

[Hermit For Peace]

The word is "blackmail": to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

I keep hearing that the supporters of "Hillary's ball and chain" and also the ball and chain himself are demanding things happen a certain way during the convention or else....

What's up with that?

Hillary is ahead of him in every way. What is so hard to understand about that? She has worked very hard for years to garner the support she has in the Democratic Party. What has Bernie done?

It's not nice to threaten blackmail when you lost the campaign.

[Landslide Lyndon]

And you kind of prove the point here that Bernie loses leverage every day. It was at its peak on June 7th, but after Hillary clinched the nomination and got endorsements from Obama/Biden/Warren etc., Trump imploded, and Hillary surged in the polls, many of the Bernie supporters are already beginning to rally around her. As time passes, more and more will gradually do so. Soon the only people who are left will be those that are so deranged with Hillary hatred (like you) that his endorsement would mean nothing to them, and even being on the ticket would mean nothing to them since it would just mean he "sold out." Meaning his endorsement would then be effectively worthless.

This. Merkley, Grijalva, MoveOn, and many others Sanders supporters have already abandoned him and endorsed Hillary.
The only ones left are nutjobs like that Nina Turner character who just today was saying that a Sanders nomination is still possible and if not then there should be a third party run by a "real" progressive.

P.S. BTW, what's wrong with that woman? Bill Clinton campaigned for her in 2014, she was a Hillary supporters initially, but now she has become more unhinged than HA Goodman.

[Suck my caulk]

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.
B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.
C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.
D.) Even if Clinton wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her because she does not represent my values. If that makes me a sore loser, then so be it.

B)  There's no "right" to be given a speech to try to convince superdelegates to vote for you hours before they're going to vote, especially when all of them have said they will support Clinton.  And even if there was, it's absolutely obvious that by any measure of decency Bernie should do what Hillary did in 2008 and accept that he lost instead of irritating everyone and hurting the party by hopelessly trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him.  That aside, Bernie and his campaign have even said that they're not trying to flip superdelegates anymore, so you're arguing something Bernie's not even arguing.

C)  Angus King and Jim Jeffords don't go around talking about how terrible, corrupt and full of crooks the Democratic Party is and how it needs to change its policies and accept their ideas or it will die.

D)   I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Hillary actually does represent your values, but when asked about it you'll pick the one or two values Bernie told you she disagrees with you on and pretend those are more important than all the ones she agrees with you on, so that you can pretend to have a stubbornvaliant justification for what is really an immature, pathetic, sad little sulk of a vote.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

LMAO. You're completely hopeless, child. You ARE damaging the ticket by not supporting the nominee and parroting right-wing talking points. I'm sure you've heard that "united we stand, divided we fall" thing. We do not want to engage in a civil war similar to what is going on in the Republican/Tea/Trump Party. If you really care about progressive principles, you need to understand that there's more at stake here than just the Presidency: we also have to win seats in Congress, at the state level, and down the ticket to fully implement the progressive principles and ideals that we hold dear. People such as yourself just make it all the more likely for people to doubt Hillary Clinton given all the right-wing lies and smears that have been launched against her, and that just leads them to vote for the other guy; in this case, Trump. Think about that...

But your whines are still nothing but salty, sour grapes. Furthermore, we are going to desist with the lettered bulleting of our points because this is not a multiple choice test, although you're about to be schooled, so take some notes.

Hillary Clinton has been more than gracious to Bernie Sanders and stubborn supporters such as yourself. She's extended the olive branch about as far as she can, only to have it fall on deaf ears because it seems as though she can do nothing to appease folks such as you who despise her so much that you're willing to throw your vote away for a candidate who couldn't crack half of one percent of the nationwide vote in 2012 and who didn't even qualify for the ballot in all 51 states (that's including the District of Columbia). If you really hate her that much, please don't call yourself a progressive, because you're not: you're just another sore loser who's making it easier for Donald Trump to creep closer to the finish line, because every time you attack her using right-wing talking points and smear tactics, you're doing nothing but validating the Karl Rove playbook. Nothing progressive about that.

What are these alleged"unforeseen "electoral consequences" of which you speak? Are you looking into a crystal ball, Larry Sabato, or are you just another Miss Cleo trying to spread panic and fear and being a concern troll because "muh general election polls says..." Your warning is just more smack talk from someone who got beat fair and square; thus, a sore loser.

[Suck my caulk]

A.) I do not want to speak at the Green Convention because I am a Democrat.
B.) There is no "sickening" double standard. Clinton does not have 2,383 pledged delegates, and therefore Sanders has a right to make a case for himself.
C.) Sanders has been caucusing with Democrats since first entering the House in 1991. Jim Jeffords and Angus King were/are also both independents who caucus with the Democrats. Sanders merely registered as a Democrat for the purpose of running, but he is not new to the cause. It is not as if he was the 2012 Green nominee (Jill Stein) who registered as a Democrat in 2016 to have a better chance at victory. He has been devoted to the cause his entire career.
D.) Even if Clinton wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her because she does not represent my values. If that makes me a sore loser, then so be it.

B)  There's no "right" to be given a speech to try to convince superdelegates to vote for you hours before they're going to vote, especially when all of them have said they will support Clinton.  And even if there was, it's absolutely obvious that by any measure of decency Bernie should do what Hillary did in 2008 and accept that he lost instead of irritating everyone and hurting the party by hopelessly trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him.  That aside, Bernie and his campaign have even said that they're not trying to flip superdelegates anymore, so you're arguing something Bernie's not even arguing.

C)  Angus King and Jim Jeffords don't go around talking about how terrible, corrupt and full of crooks the Democratic Party is and how it needs to change its policies and accept their ideas or it will die.

D)   I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Hillary actually does represent your values, but when asked about it you'll pick the one or two values Bernie told you she disagrees with you on and pretend those are more important than all the ones she agrees with you on, so that you can pretend to have a stubbornvaliant justification for what is really an immature, pathetic, sad little sulk of a vote.

B.) You are correct that there is no "right" to speak at the DNC and I am not suggesting there is. I am, however, suggesting that there may be electoral consequences for the Democratic nominee if she does not offer concessions to the Bernie Sanders supporters/faction of the Party, because many will not "hold their nose" and vote for Clinton.

C.) You are correct about that. I gladly voted for Angus King in 2012, but it is not a secret that Sanders is to the left of King and only slightly agrees with the Democrats more than he does the Republicans.

D.) Incorrect. I liked Clinton in 2008, and did not have a problem with her as First Lady or Senator, but when she became Secretary of State, her true colors (with respect to Keystone XL, fracking, TPP, foreign policy [which was already hawkish], NSA/spying, and the Clinton Foundation) showed clearly. Those may seem like talking points, but they are individual issues that I have long cared about, and that I have seen Clinton flip-flop on and sell out to multi-national corporations on. Sanders did not tell me anything about Clinton I did not already know. I do not want to damage the Democratic ticket by mindlessly repeating negative talking points, but neither Bernie Sanders nor I are the ones causing the damage to the Party; the damage is being done by Hillary Clinton, and the fact that she is a right-wing Democrat with too much baggage for my liking.

"Me and many other Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton no matter what! Stein 2016!"

"If Clinton doesn't do X, Y, and Z, me and many other Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton! Stein 2016!"

I see you aren't very skilled in the art of negotiation.

Let me put this in layman's terms, buddy: I will not be voting for Clinton. Period. Some "Sandernistas" will vote for Clinton if she adopts some positions demanded by the Sanders campaign. Some "Sandernistas," out of spite for Trump will vote for Clinton, even if she tells Sanders to  off and moves further to the right. Some "Sandernistas" will vote for Trump, Johnson, or Stein. I am one person, and only speak for myself. I will not vote for Clinton even if she adopts some of Sanders' positions because I will not believe her convictions of those positions. Others will. I was simply stating that in the sentences you quoted.

[Suck my caulk]

The word is "blackmail": to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.

I keep hearing that the supporters of "Hillary's ball and chain" and also the ball and chain himself are demanding things happen a certain way during the convention or else....

What's up with that?

Hillary is ahead of him in every way. What is so hard to understand about that? She has worked very hard for years to garner the support she has in the Democratic Party. What has Bernie done?

It's not nice to threaten blackmail when you lost the campaign.

Clinton has a majority of the Democratic Party (not necessarily delegates) behind her, according to polls, but that is not enough to win in itself. Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

Sanders has caucused and voted with the Democratic Party on a majority of issues since he entered the House in 1991, and has supported the Democratic candidate in every election since, with the possible exception of 2000 (I am not sure about that one).

[Landslide Lyndon]

Sanders supporters like myself want to see a more progressive Democratic candidate and Party. Some will be content to see Clinton adopt a few positions of Sanders at the convention; others will not.

And I want to be rich and handsome kid, but life is a bitch.